The success of university campuses depends on the interrelations between creative encounters and the built environment, conceptualised here as spatial affordances for creativity. Such an interface plays a fundamental role in interactions for knowledge sharing and the exchange of ideas on campus. Due to campus public spaces generally being considered as the leftovers between buildings and classrooms, undermanaged, and overlooked, little is known about the extent to which this built environment enables or inhibits creative encounters in such spaces. The inner-city campuses and science parks (SPs) of Amsterdam and Utrecht, the case-studies of this research, differ in terms of their location relative to the city, their masterplan typologies and the arrangement of buildings. However, they are similar in terms of the aforementioned issues of public spaces. The novelty of this research is the attempt to overcome such issues using an innovative mixed-methods approach that tests the ‘spatial affordances for creativity’ with empirical data collection and analysis. This raises the importance of mapping, quantifying and analysing the spatial distribution of momentary perceptions, experiences, and feelings of people with methods such as volunteered geographic information (VGI). The results show that proximity between multiple urban functions and physical features, such as parks, cafés and urban seating are important when it comes to explaining the high frequency of creative encounters between people. Urban designers of campuses can use the applied method as a tool to plan and design attractive public spaces that provide creativity through the transfer of tacit knowledge, social well-being, positive momentary perceptions, sense of community, and a sense of place.

To date, little is known about the spatial aspects of the creativity of university campuses and their public spaces. This study recognises that creativity is the fourth sustainability, because the spatial configuration of campuses and city-university accessibilities are ‘creative solutions’ conceived for human needs. At the same time, creative ideas depend on interactions between individuals and the built environment. Therefore, based on the theoretical framework of the scholars who have explored the spatial aspects of creativity, this study empirically investigates Zernike Campus, Groningen, and its public spaces using a mixed-methods approach that involves (1) a space syntax analysis of the campus’s spatial configuration, (2) volunteered geographic information (VGI) of the users’ perceptions, and (3) non-participatory observations of the interactions between people and the built environment in public spaces with high and low ‘potential for creativity’. The results show that creativity cannot be explained simply by analysing spatial configurations, but that it also depends on the combination of the land-use mix, physical features, positive experiences, and perceptions of a sense of place which enable trust and interactions, and which facilitate creative encounters. Therefore, the mixed-methods approach applied here can help urban planners and designers to address public spaces more effectively, integrating conditions that support creativity.

Studies on university campuses public spaces have recognized that there is a significant relationship between the built environment and people's perceptions of creativity. There is, however, little empirical evidence to support this claim. This research quantifies and measures this relationship, defined as 'spatial affordances for creativity', using two types of Dutch university campuses as case studies: inner-city campuses and science parks (SPs). This study found statistical associations that locations of built environment features influenced creativity between people. Moreover, spatial affordances for creativity must be considered in the planning and design of campuses, as a suite of spatial and perceptual conditions.

List of figures 1.1.4.2. Data collection and analysis 1.5. Structure of the thesis References 2.The Relationship between the Spatial Configuration and the Fourth Sustainable Dimension Creativity in University Campuses:The Case Study of Zernike Campus, Groningen, the Netherlands 2.1. Introduction 2.2. Literature Review 2.2.1. Spatial configuration: Space syntax for university campus planning and design 2.2.2. Mapping people's perceptions and observing interactions 2.2.3. Creativity as the fourth sustainability through the lens of space syntax and the sense of place 2.3. Materials and methods 2.3.1. Case study: Zernike Campus, Groningen, the Netherlands 2.3.2. Computational analysis with space syntax 2.3.3. Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) 2.3.4. Combining the space syntax model with volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) data 2.3.5. Observation of interactions between people and the built environment 2.4. Results and discussion 2.4.1. Potential for creative encounters through spatial configuration 2.4.2. Superimposing people's perceptions on space syntax results 2.4.3. Observation analysis: Physical features, interactions and creativity 2.5. Conclusions references 3. Public spaces as knowledgescapes: Understanding the relationship between the built environment and creative encounters at Dutch university campuses and science parks 3.1. Introduction 3.2. Literature Review 3.2.1. Spatial affordances for creativity of university campuses 3.2.2. Public spaces: The interface between perceptions and built environment features 3.3. Materials and methods 3.3.1. Case studies 3.3.2. Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) and spatial analysis 3.3.3. The interface between mapped perceptions and builtenvironment features 3.3.4. Differences and similarities between public spaces of inner-city campuses and science parks 3.4. Results and discussion 3.4.1. Perceptions of creative encounters throughout campus public spaces 3.4.2. The proximity between high-value cells and characteristics of the built environment 3.4.3. Differences and similarities of creative encounters and public spaces at inner-city campuses and science parks 3.5. Conclusions References 4. The impact of the built environment on creativity in public spaces of Dutch university campuses and science parks 4.1. Introduction 4.2. Methodology 4.2.1. Study areas 4.2.2. Data collection 4.2.3. Statistical analysis 4.3. Results 4.3.1. Frequency of creative encounters 4.3.2. Pooled model 4.3.3. Comparative models 4.4. Discussion and conclusion References 5. Socio-spatial aspects of creativity and their role in the planning and design of university campuses public spaces: a practitioners' perspective 5.1. Introduction 5.2. Theoretical Framework 5.2.1. University campuses' public spaces and creativity 5.2.2. Effectiveness of research evidence for the decision-making, planning and design of public spaces 5.3. Methodology 5.3.1. The institutional context of Dutch campuses' public spaces 5.3.2. Case selection 5.3.3. Data collection and participants 5.3.4. Data analysis...

This paper investigates how socio-spatial aspects of creativity, operationalized as the causal relations between the built environment and perceived creativity in university campuses’ public spaces, are currently applied in practice. Moreover, it discusses practitioners’ perceptions regarding research-generated evidence on socio-spatial aspects of creativity according to three effectiveness aspects: credibility, relevance, and applicability. The “research-generated evidence” is herein derived from data-driven knowledge generated by multi-disciplinary methodologies (e.g., self-reported perceptions, participatory tools, geospatial analysis, observations). Through a thematic analysis of interviews with practitioners involved in the (re)development of campuses public spaces of inner-city campuses and science parks in Amsterdam, Utrecht, and Groningen. We concluded that socio-spatial aspects of creativity concepts were addressed only at the decision-making level for Utrecht Science Park. Correspondingly, while presented evidence was considered by most practitioners as relevant for practice, perceptions of credibility and applicability vary according to institutional goals, practitioners’ habits in practice, and their involvement in projects’ roles and phases. The newfound interrelationships between the three effectiveness aspects highlighted (a) the institutional fragmentation issues in campuses and public spaces projects, (b) the research-practice gap related to such projects, which occur beyond the university campuses’ context, and (c) insights on the relationship between evidence generated through research-based data-driven knowledge and urban planning practice, policy, and governance related to knowledge environments. We concluded that if research-generated evidence on socio-spatial aspects of creativity is to be integrated into the evidence-based practice of campuses’ public spaces, an alignment between researchers, multiple actors involved, policy framing, and goal achievements are fundamental.